TONY BLAIR faces increasing pressure to disclose the Government’s legal case for war and to give guarantees that the Armed Forces and civil servants will be acting within the law.

As Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, faces calls to publish his advice to ministers, MPs demanded assurances yesterday that civil servants were legally protected.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, told the Commons Public Administration Committee that work was “going on at the moment” to set out what the basis of law is for actions by the military and civil servants in any war in Iraq. “No civil servant should be asked to take action unless it is legal,” he said.

Pressed by MPs, Sir Andrew said: “I am confident that no civil servant will be asked to perform any action which is unlawful.” This would be made clear whenever the next parliamentary debate came. There is “an absolute requirement for a legal basis for actions taken”, he said. “I am absolutely confident that this undertaking will be fulfilled.”

As Lord Goldsmith’s legal opinion remained confidential, William Cash, Shadow Attorney-General, said there was no reason in law why the Prime Minister should not publish it. “It is entirely down to his discretion,” he said. “And the more that he resists doing so, the more suspicions must be aroused that perhaps there is a divergence of view.”

Yesterday the Attorney General’s office remained true to the convention of neither confirming nor denying even that legal advice had been given. The advice given by the Government’s law officers is occasionally disclosed, but both they and the Government must consent. But the present refusal to confirm the legal advice — other than that the basis lies in the existing UN Resolution 1441 — has prompted fresh speculation about its content.

Lord Goldsmith’s opinion, one government lawyer said, will have reflected the “pros and cons”, but it will have come down clearly on one side. “And the Government always accepts the law officer’s view.” Opinion among international lawyers is split. There are two main schools of thought: those who think the existing UN resolutions give ample legal authority for military action, and those who think a second specific UN resolution is required.

There is a further view that even a second UN resolution might not provide the necessary legal authority, unless it specifically authorises force.

Lord Goldsmith personally would like to see a second UN resolution, but the Foreign Office argues that while politically desirable, it is not legally necessary.

Christopher Greenwood, a QC and Professor of International Law at the LSE, said: “I think there is existing authority, deriving from resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Of course, it would be highly desirable to have a second UN resolution because that puts the matter beyond serious question, but if that is not possible, I would support the use of force without the resolution.”

Professor Greenwood dismissed suggestions that soldiers could be committing war crimes if there was war without a second resolution. “Soldiers on the ground are judged according to the actions they carry out — that is quite distinct from the issue of the legality of going to war.”

Another international barrister, Khawar Qureshi, said: “It is arguable that existing resolutions of themselves provide legal justification for use of force. These existing resolutions declare that the situation in Iraq is a threat to international peace and security and are still valid and binding — they would require a subsequent Security Council resolution effectively to neutralise them.”

Both lawyers also believe that if there is a second UN resolution and it is lost, it will not “taint” the legal authority of the existing resolutions.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Fish and chip shops ‘selling cobbler as cod’
• T in the Park festival at Kinross
• Body Watch